Yeah, it is incredibly tone deaf.

I can fully understand some executives trying to hype up AI with the "It'll create more jobs!" mantra, but as it happens, the AI boom coincided with the post-COVID layoffs (from the hiring frenzy we saw back then) - so even though AI might directly not be responsible for less junior/grad hiring in the various industries, the vibe is that it is still responsible for the tough times college grads are facing.

▲

GrinningFool 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am starting to see so much consistency in the "it's not AI, it's overhiring" commentary that it's actually starting to feel like a narrative constructed to allay concerns about AI impacts. At this point it's a "pandemic overhire correction" that the industry has been doing for two years, and is accelerating.

	▲	ryandrake 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yea, I don't know how long they're planning to milk the "pandemic overhiring" excuse. Ten years? In 2030, we'll still be seeing headlines like "Company X lays off another 10,000 workers due to overhearing ten years ago..."

▲

nemomarx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The over hiring explanation will only last so long - you can't really say we were still over hiring after about 2023, right?

So by next year you'd expect that shedding to be mostly done I think. and then companies no longer hiring juniors to train up will be obviously ai related